Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of advanced stage endometriosis: a meta-analysis

Chen Sh, Shao-Hui Chen, Li ZA, Zhao-Ai Li, Du XP, Xiu-Ping Du
Clinical and experimental obstetrics & gynecology · 2016 · doi:10.12891/ceog3133.2016 · PMID:27328505
meta-analysis OA: bronze public-domain-us
🔓 Open OA copy Full text JSON View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by gemini-2.5-flash-lite, 2026-06-28 ⓘ

Robot-assisted laparoscopy requires longer operating times but shows no significant differences in blood loss, complications, or hospital stay compared to conventional laparoscopy for advanced endometriosis.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

⚙ AI-generated deep summary by claude@2026-07, 2026-07-15 · read from full text ⓘ

This paper is a meta-analysis comparing robot-assisted laparoscopy (RAL) versus conventional laparoscopy (CL) for advanced stage endometriosis, using a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Elsevier for studies published between 2008 and 2015. Only two comparative clinical trials met inclusion criteria, and outcomes were pooled using RevMan 5.1, including operative time, blood loss, operative complications, and hospitalization length. The analysis found no significant differences between RAL and CL for blood loss, complication rates, or hospital stay, but RAL had a longer mean operating time than CL. The authors conclude that RAL shows no clear advantages and note that any potential latent benefits remain uncertain, reflecting the limited evidence base, which relates directly to advanced stage endometriosis surgery outcomes. This paper is centrally about endometriosis — it specifically meta-analyzes RAL versus conventional laparoscopy in advanced stage endometriosis.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of robot-assisted laparoscopy (RAL) versus conventional laparoscopy (CL) in the treatment of advanced stage endometriosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Utilizing electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Elsevier), a systematic literature review was performed between 2008 and 2015 to compare the RAL surgery with CL surgery (CLS) in the treatment of advanced stage endometriosis. According to meta-analysis criteria, two comparative clinical trials were selected. Outcome measures including length of operation, blood loss, operative complications, and the length of hospitalization, were estimated by the RevMan 5.1 software. RESULTS: In the meta-analysis, there were no significant differences in blood loss, complication, and hospital stay between RAL and CL surgeries in the treatment of advanced stage endometriosis. However, RAL surgery required a higher mean operating time than CL surgery (WMD: 73.85, 95% CI: 56.77-90.94; p < 0 .00001). Comparative studies demonstrated that RAL displayed no outstanding advantages. CONCLUSIONS: As a new minimally invasive method, RAL technology is safe and efficient alternative to CL in the treatment of advanced stage endometriosis. The latent benefits of RAL technology for the treatment of advanced stage endometriosis remain uncertain.
Full text 2,010 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · 2 sections · click to expand

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of robot-assisted laparoscopy (RAL) versus conventional laparoscopy (CL) in the treatment of advanced stage endometriosis. Materials and Methods: Utilizing electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Elsevier ), a systematic literature review was performed between 2008 and 2015 to compare the RAL surgery with CL surgery (CLS) in the treatment of advanced stage endometriosis. According to meta-analysis criteria, two comparative clinical trials were selected. Outcome measures including length of operation, blood loss, operative complications, and the length of hospitalization, were estimated by the RevMan 5.1software. Results: In the meta-analysis, there were no significant differences in blood loss, complication, and hospital stay between RAL and CL surgeries in the treatment of advanced stage endometriosis. However, RAL surgery required a higher mean operating time than CL surgery (WMD: 73.85, 95% CI: 56.77?90.94; p < 0 .00001). Comparative studies demonstrated that RAL displayed no outstanding advantages. Conclusions: As a new minimally invasive method, RAL technology is safe and efficient alternative to CL in the treatment of advanced stage endometriosis. The latent benefits of RAL technology for the treatment of advanced stage endometriosis remain uncertain.

Keywords

- Robot-assisted - Laparoscopy - Endometriosis - Advanced stage endometriosis - Conventional laparoscopy

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

⚙ Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback ⓘ

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Condition tags

endometriosis

MeSH descriptors

Endometriosis Laparoscopy Robotic Surgical Procedures Endometriosis Female Humans Laparoscopy Length of Stay Operative Time Outcome Assessment, Health Care Robotic Surgical Procedures Severity of Illness Index

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. The paper's references may be in our DB but unresolved to ``paper_id`` (resolution happens at ingest when the cited DOI matches a row we already have). Run the cross-source citation reconcile pass to retry.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-08-25T06:10:03.373225+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-05-13T22:21:00.404924+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-16T02:00:00.672124+00:00
License: public-domain-us · commercial use OK · attribution required
Courtesy of the U.S. National Library of Medicine